the link says there are going to apply hydrogel in diabetic mice, thus will know whether hydrogel works only in healthy or ill people also in this style (diabetic human be). by the way we talk about greater epithelium in this page but not talking about normal skin cured by what I see is talk of reducing scar only.

The tests on diabetic mice are likely to see what efficacy the treatment might have for humans with chronic wounds caused by diabetes (e.g. diabetic foot ulcers). The verbiage they use in this abstract is exactly the same as was used in the paper for the dextran hydrogel and for the paper on implanting human vasculatures. I don't see any talk of "reduced scarring" anywhere in the paper. Rather, they're just using the same terms that are in the cited scientific paper (e.g. enhanced re-epithelialization).

The fact they're using it on diabetic mice is just to see how broad the applications for the hydrogel might be. They already shown the efficacy for full thickness burn wounds, but there's huge market potential if it can treat chronic wounds as well. And I'm not sure if you were trying to say they aren't testing on pigs, but if so, that's not true. It's right there in the release:

the word enhanced re-epithelialization is like the word reduced scarring for me. path i'm wrong you right. i don't trust.

Well, since they're referencing the tests that were performed and cited in the paper we all know, I don't think enhanced really means reduced scarring. Rather, I'd imagine it's the technical term they have to apply to any outcome (complete regeneration or not) that is better than a control outcome. I agree that enhanced does leave some room for ambiguity, but I think that's just the standard way papers refer to an outcome that exceeds the norm.

A healthy amount of skepticism is fine though. I'm just going to wait until Nov. 6th to see what can be gleaned from the conference. At this point I know what it can do in mice since that's already been tested and shown to be "complete regeneration" (term used in the published paper) with appendages. I'm much more interested in the results on porcine subjects because they heal very similarly to humans.

On the other hand,the human skinis uniquein havingsweat glandsand createelevatedscarsskinwhichother mammalsdo not think aresimilar to us

the solutionwill comebecause there is agroup of peoplelooking for itandalthoughtechnologyis fartobe peoplelooking for thingsthe answerswillcome, butnot today, this is the reality i live in the real thing im not dream any more

indeed, Vladislav,the one whosaidherethat theregenerationismuch more complicatedthan you think...I did,iswhat I saysince Iregisteredhere.on the other handseabsalwayssaid it wasa simple processwhere onlysecretedmorecollagenso thealwaysthought thatwould be thesolutiondecorin, but maybenow inthe endhe understood thatIwas right

I always tell the truth, no matter what it takes, no matter if it sounds negative I analyze and study for decades this issue and see that the only solution if there is one, is, is gene therapy to cure all diseases

If you ask a chemist, will tell the simple rule of thumb, the bigger, stronger, as this can project to medicine: the more genes are handled better result. I do not think a physical element as hydrogel us a solution. perhaps help in scar reduction but I do not regenerate normal skin and perfect routed least follicles.
the only cure is gene therapy and yes, we're screwed, this will be true in a hundred years (although probably illegal dark laboratories already be experiencing advanced countries with this), also can not give this therapy light that would be illegal, have to go through shit that would lead approvals so long.

On the other hand, the human skin is unique in having sweat glands and create elevated scars skin which other mammals do not think are similar to us

the solution will come because there is a group of people looking for it and although technology is far to be people looking for things the answers will come, but not today, this is the reality i live in the real thing im not dream any more

indeed, Vladislav, the one who said here that the regeneration is much more complicated than you think ... I did, is what I say since I registered here. on the other hand seabs always said it was a simple process where only secreted more collagen so the always thought that would be the solution decorin, but maybe now in the end he understood that I was right

I appreciate your skepticism. I think it's good that we all don't fall head over heels for the hydrogel until it's made it through pre-clinical testing and has results in humans.

However, some of what your write just sounds like fatalism. First, scarring isn't a disease, it's a biological response at the site of an injury. It's the human body's natural response to that event. And we've done plenty of manipulation to the body's natural responses, and diseases, without gene therapy up to this point in medical history. So while gene therapy may one day be able to achieve scar free healing, it's irresponsible to say it's the only way.

I'm not sure what you're note about asking a chemist means. It might be a language barrier thing, but I could just as easily cite Occam's Razor, or diagnostic parsimony, as a reason why the hydrogel could the answer. Basically, you look for the fewest possible causes for why, in this case, we couldn't heal scar free. As seabs said some time ago, we don't need to know every minute detail about how and why something operates the way it does. It's enough to know only what's needed and that it works. And for your case you could site Hickum's Dictum, which is pretty much the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.

In essence, it's entirely possible that things like gene therapy will fail, or take forever, simply because they're looking for an incredibly complex solution to a problem that can handled with a much simpler one. That's not to say that the process of wound healing isn't complex because it is. But I think we should all realize that understanding something in total isn't always necessary for achieving results. Conversely, I'll acknowledge that sometimes more complex solutions are the answer (e.g. Hickam's Dictum).

I would never say the hydrogel is definitely going to or not going to work and no one else should for that matter. That would be foolish. I have neither the expertise or information to make such a claim and my guess is that no one else on this board does either. Heck, the researchers don't even enough information to make that claim. So unless one of us decides to change careers and dedicate his or herself to researching wound healing, biomedical engineering and biology any speculation or absolute claim anyone else makes on this board about it is bunk.

It's fine that I have a positive outlook based on the information and you do not. But speaking in absolutes about the hydrogel when we simply do not know the answer isn't useful. All we know for sure is: it resulted in complete regeneration in mice, it's not being tested on diabetic mice and pigs and they speculate the timeline for human application to be sometime in the next two years. That's it.

On a somewhat related topic, Atala's team at Wake Forest has been give 24 million by the US Dept. of Defense to make tiny organs on a chip. This way we could test treatments directly on human cells to see their response rather than animal models. I'm not sure how much this would apply to wound healing but it's a good sign that things could speed up a good bit over the next few years.

I always tell the truth, no matter what it takes, no matter if it sounds negative I analyze and study for decades this issue and see that the only solution if there is one, is, is gene therapy to cure all diseases

If you ask a chemist, will tell the simple rule of thumb, the bigger, stronger, as this can project to medicine: the more genes are handled better result. I do not think a physical element as hydrogel us a solution. perhaps help in scar reduction but I do not regenerate normal skin and perfect routed least follicles.
the only cure is gene therapy and yes, we're screwed, this will be true in a hundred years (although probably illegal dark laboratories already be experiencing advanced countries with this), also can not give this therapy light that would be illegal, have to go through shit that would lead approvals so long.

On the other hand, the human skin is unique in having sweat glands and create elevated scars skin which other mammals do not think are similar to us

the solution will come because there is a group of people looking for it and although technology is far to be people looking for things the answers will come, but not today, this is the reality i live in the real thing im not dream any more

indeed, Vladislav, the one who said here that the regeneration is much more complicated than you think ... I did, is what I say since I registered here. on the other hand seabs always said it was a simple process where only secreted more collagen so the always thought that would be the solution decorin, but maybe now in the end he understood that I was right

I appreciate your skepticism. I think it's good that we all don't fall head over heels for the hydrogel until it's made it through pre-clinical testing and has results in humans.

However, some of what your write just sounds like fatalism. First, scarring isn't a disease, it's a biological response at the site of an injury. It's the human body's natural response to that event. And we've done plenty of manipulation to the body's natural responses, and diseases, without gene therapy up to this point in medical history. So while gene therapy may one day be able to achieve scar free healing, it's irresponsible to say it's the only way.

I'm not sure what you're note about asking a chemist means. It might be a language barrier thing, but I could just as easily cite Occam's Razor, or diagnostic parsimony, as a reason why the hydrogel could the answer. Basically, you look for the fewest possible causes for why, in this case, we couldn't heal scar free. As seabs said some time ago, we don't need to know every minute detail about how and why something operates the way it does. It's enough to know only what's needed and that it works. And for your case you could site Hickum's Dictum, which is pretty much the exact opposite of Occam's Razor.

In essence, it's entirely possible that things like gene therapy will fail, or take forever, simply because they're looking for an incredibly complex solution to a problem that can handled with a much simpler one. That's not to say that the process of wound healing isn't complex because it is. But I think we should all realize that understanding something in total isn't always necessary for achieving results. Conversely, I'll acknowledge that sometimes more complex solutions are the answer (e.g. Hickam's Dictum).

I would never say the hydrogel is definitely going to or not going to work and no one else should for that matter. That would be foolish. I have neither the expertise or information to make such a claim and my guess is that no one else on this board does either. Heck, the researchers don't even enough information to make that claim. So unless one of us decides to change careers and dedicate his or herself to researching wound healing, biomedical engineering and biology any speculation or absolute claim anyone else makes on this board about it is bunk.

It's fine that I have a positive outlook based on the information and you do not. But speaking in absolutes about the hydrogel when we simply do not know the answer isn't useful. All we know for sure is: it resulted in complete regeneration in mice, it's not being tested on diabetic mice and pigs and they speculate the timeline for human application to be sometime in the next two years. That's it.

On a somewhat related topic, Atala's team at Wake Forest has been give 24 million by the US Dept. of Defense to make tiny organs on a chip. This way we could test treatments directly on human cells to see their response rather than animal models. I'm not sure how much this would apply to wound healing but it's a good sign that things could speed up a good bit over the next few years.

You are probablytoo young.whenI was a teenageralways saidthat in adecadewould be obtainedall the solutionsto my problemsastechnologywould exist.Spielbergalsomade ​​it intothe 80's witha moviethat simulateda world offlying carsin the yeartwo thousand.thoseflying carswill existasis, but it willtake much longer.notbytechnology (in the case of flying cars)the problemis theimplementation. to implementsomething that will changethe lives ofpeople in a verydramatic, you have tomake agradualimplementation before many rules

is like tellingsocietythanignorant andnotbe a victimof consumerismisnotnecessary to change theipodfora new one everyyear orgo tomcdonaldforit is to beoutside the system

WhyI thinkthere is nosolutionmaybe? because the evolutionneverwanted.to have aperfect skin you must have a perfec dermis athat it cangivea grow of'junk'keratin, that'swhat you seeas 'skin',ifyou look at yourskin withamagnifying glasswillseethat the surfaceof the skin area sea of​​irregularkeratocytes. that's theperfectepidermisirregular zoneofkeratinwastecreatedfrom aperfectdermis

The evolutionfor an unknown reasonreduced themandibularmusculatureand thusleft overspacein the brainand thuscouldenlarge.thanks to thiswe can reason.humansevolvedthroughthousands ofyears but neverthe body willgive the order to'regenerate'evolutionalwaysseeimmediate curemost importantbecauseevolutionary

Hi folks, I am not scientist even English is not my first language and I do not Wright English correctly, but this web is to talk about scars not about me.

If they can heal a mice 3rd degree burn and regrow hair and glands. (Nobody did it before even in mice) in humanas will be posible as well, I know that mice and humans are different but both are mammals. I think they found the correct path, I am realistic I do not know how much time it will takes,,months, years, but the hydrogel with the proper ajustments, readjustments and with the right proportions can work in humans also.

Scar is not a disease, although stem cells are usefull and in the future will be even more, many illness and body problems in humans and animals has been cured and solved without stem cells and gene therapy.

Examples: 1)Your leg is borken, are you ill? No, but you need to go to the doctor and the problem will be solved with a cast and some rest.

2)Yoy have a big wine color stain in your face; are you ill? of course not, some years ago the vacular (pulsed dye laser) has been invented and the stain can be easily removed. (Gene therapy is useful but not always necessary).

It is healthy to have expectation using science though. It is ok to have a reliable prediction, and have an expectation because of the science that has went on before hand.

E.g. if say, John an engineer, modelled a new bridge to scale in a lab.

John then stress tested it against a reliable control.

The control being a reliable scale bridge, a well built sold bridge that has been developed and tested over x amount of years previously.

Lets say, in the results and conclusion, it was found that John's bridge can handle 50% more stress and is better in design.

John and that lab, could then strongly expect reliably that when this bridge is scaled up to span a river that it will handle 50% more stress than the previous bridge, and will be a better bridge.

This is the same logic. We know this degrades much faster with the neutrophils, than the control (a control that degrades at a similar rate in all mammals) and that it got complete regeneration after being digested were the control did not get complete regeneration.

The expectation from the science that this will digest the same to scale in with the control is massive. The expectation from the science that this wont follow suit, and not go to scale with the control, is tiny.

I would never say the hydrogel is definitely going to or not going to work and no one else should for that matter.

in factwe will bemorein the futureuglypollutionasa scientistsaidwe will resemblemuchof whatis now understoodas an alienwith big eyes anda nosewithfilters

You're such a funny guy, your comments make me laugh sometimes and your English is hilarious
Look at the Gartner hype cycle for 2013 - according to their estimates 3D bioprinting is now 5 to 10 years away from the 'plateau of productivity' phase, last year is was estimated that 3D bioprinting is more than 10 years away from that phase.http://na1.www.gartn...a3db6f9c029a4db
And evolution will not make us big eyes and filters in the nose because we will be able to control the evolution rather than being controled - that is called 'Human Augmentation' or 'Humans 2.0', you can see it on the Gartner hype cycle, however it is probably far distant future. And there won't be pollution in the future because we will have more efficient solar energy, nuclear fusion energy (you can google about ITER and DEMO projects) and so called 'generation IV' fission reactors.

I just want to say that for me it is totally inconceivable that gene therapy could achieve the same result on mice as the hydrogel during the next 20-30 years - scar free helaing and complete regeneration of the skin with hair follicles and sebaceous glands, just read this paper:http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0032875
In this reseach they found 27 genes that have a different pattern of expression during wound healing in salamanders compared to mice, that means that the mechanism of wound healing is very complex, so that's why genomics/gene therapy is the wrong approach, the result of that approach could be only scarless healing (for example it could be very useful for a heart damage after an MI) but it won't be scar free healing, so the right approach is regenerative medicine: scaffolds, embryonic stem cells, iPS cells and things like that.
And gene therapy is very dangerous, for example there is a well known case when 4 out od 10 clildren with a disease called SCID (severe combined immunodeficiency) were treated with gene therapy, they were cured (since themechanismof that diseaseis verysimple, children lack a single gene which makes their immune systems non functioning) but later they developed leukemia, gene therapy can unintentionally damage your oncogenes (tumor suppressor genes), you don't want that to happen, on the other hand the hydrogel is just a simple scaffold, the hydrogel will not damage your tumor suppressor genes, it is safe.

You liketo usestatisticschartcan make acircular typewith percentagesbyfactors,you will see thatthe factors aremorenegative than positive,so thechaos ismorefeasible.you can see thepercentage factorwithcumulativefactor

In this reseach they found 27 genes that have a different pattern of expression during wound healing in salamanders compared to mice, that means that the mechanism of wound healing is very complex, so that's why genomics/gene therapy is the wrong approach, the result of that approach could be only scarless healing (for example it could be very useful for a heart damage after an MI) but it won't be scar free healing, so the right approach is regenerative medicine: scaffolds, embryonic stem cells, iPS cells and things like that.

you realizethat you're giving methe reason?

you are nowsayingwhat I saidbut in differentwords.

you say: that means that the mechanism of wound healing is very complex

you say: so that's why genomics/gene therapy is the wrong approach, the result of that approach could be only scarless healing (for example it could be very useful for a heart damage after an MI) but it won't be scar free healing

i say before: can onlyregenerateare someinternal organsbut we can neverregenerate skinas thisis an organto the outsideand evolutionwill neverrun the risk ofinfectionsprioritizeaesthetics

on the other handyou saidthat we willbe able to controlthe evolution.welllet me tellyouvery seriouslyyou takeall thesereports thatone daywe will be ableto live foreverwith the discovery ofa geneetc ...

in fact we will be more in the future ugly pollution as a scientist said we will resemble much of what is now understood as an alien with big eyes and a nose with filters

You're such a funny guy, your comments make me laugh sometimes and your English is hilarious
Look at the Gartner hype cycle for 2013 - according to their estimates 3D bioprinting is now 5 to 10 years away from the 'plateau of productivity' phase, last year is was estimated that 3D bioprinting is more than 10 years away from that phase.http://na1.www.gartn...a3db6f9c029a4db
And evolution will not make us big eyes and filters in the nose because we will be able to control the evolution rather than being controled - that is called 'Human Augmentation' or 'Humans 2.0', you can see it on the Gartner hype cycle, however it is probably far distant future. And there won't be pollution in the future because we will have more efficient solar energy, nuclear fusion energy (you can google about ITER and DEMO projects) and so called 'generation IV' fission reactors.

Maldition is not funny.

You depend your opinion on scams and thing that would never be available to us slaves.

3d printing????LOL .Mess up so much with nature,and she will remove you.

Edited by panos, 20 September 2013 - 03:35 PM.

If you're bored of Suburbia, burn down your house,lets dance in the colour of the fire.

Speculative really what you say, the more chaotic future sounds viable future. Why? simple, solar energy is there, but nobody uses panels or electric cars, nobody cares, but that's just a detail.

The future tends to be a polluted planet as there are things that are not going to be able to solve, as the ozone layer that is already destroyed among other things (possible meteorite impact on the earth), besides that social differences are greater religions as middle East where there is general hatred towards the West So do you think that people do not have technology? when wars will avanze technology that will destroy the planet and certainly elements that will be used to do damage (in addition to the ozone layer and other factors) countries in conflict with their neighbors or identity or independence issues

There is a sentence of a person for years that says 'technology will serve for a day a person can do much damage with something small'

You like to use statistics chart can make a circular type with percentages by factors, you will see that the factors are more negative than positive, so the chaos is more feasible. you can see the percentage factor with cumulative factor

In this reseach they found 27 genes that have a different pattern of expression during wound healing in salamanders compared to mice, that means that the mechanism of wound healing is very complex, so that's why genomics/gene therapy is the wrong approach, the result of that approach could be only scarless healing (for example it could be very useful for a heart damage after an MI) but it won't be scar free healing, so the right approach is regenerative medicine: scaffolds, embryonic stem cells, iPS cells and things like that.

you realize that you're giving me the reason?

you are now saying what I said but in different words.

you say: that means that the mechanism of wound healing is very complex

i say before: humans are mammals and do not really think we can regenerate the skin by such condition (the exception of a mouse that can regenerate not count) evolution will always want quick heal scarred and will never give priority to human aesthetics.

you say: so that's why genomics/gene therapy is the wrong approach, the result of that approach could be only scarless healing (for example it could be very useful for a heart damage after an MI) but it won't be scar free healing

i say before: can only regenerate are some internal organs but we can never regenerate skin as this is an organ to the outside and evolution will never run the risk of infections prioritize aesthetics

on the other hand you said that we will be able to control the evolution. well let me tell you very seriously you take all these reports that one day we will be able to live forever with the discovery of a gene etc ...

are biological elements as the planet earth, I mean, we have a useful life the same planet is not going to last forever unless we

that's it

You honestly don't think humans have altered the course of evolution for ourselves and every other species on this planet? Come on, you can't honestly believe that. The entire endeavor of medicine is predicated on controlling evolution. Evolution is just weeding out the genes and traits that make it less likely for your species to survive and propagating the ones that make it more likely. So when we treat someone with cancer or diabetes we are altering evolution every single time.

Also, who' to say that the hydrogel is not a complex solution to the problem? The researchers themselves aren't even sure how it works so the mechanisms that are in play might be extremely complex. But history has shown that complex problems don't always require complex solutions with a thorough understanding of how it operates.

You seem to want to put up imaginary barriers to progress when in reality humans are constantly altering their environment and themselves—not always for the better. One minute you're saying gene therapy is the way but now you seem to indicate that evolution will never "allow" it. So, which is it? Isn't gene therapy an attempt to give the body a signal to regenerate, which you've contradicted yourself by indicating evolution will never allow? And stop referring to evolution as some sentient being that decides what is and isn't possible. It's a symptom, not the cause, of some genetic mutation in an animal.

Just some help with your use of words, but if you say something is impossible then it has no solution. It's irrelevant to say the solution wouldn't be "easy" because if it's impossible it's just that—not possible.

BTW, I'm in my 30s so maybe I'm younger than you, maybe I'm not. I will say that I probably would have been more inclined to your fatalistic viewpoint (and yes, it's fatalism and not realism because you ignore any evidence contrary to what you believe) when I was younger versus being older. When a person is young, he or she will typically base all their reasoning on assumptions and feelings. Whereas an older person will mature (hopefully) and stick with objective data.

Bottom line, we get it. You don't think it will work. That's fine. I'm not telling you to change your mind. But when you talk in absolutes and base your ideas on little more than assumptions then you're being no different than the alleged scam artists you vilify. I think we'd all be much more interested in your posts if you could supply objective data on other solutions or something that indicates that the hydrogel definitely will not work. Alas, so far all you've given us is your personal assumptions and biases.

Here is the latest news about gene therapy for heart scarring after a heart attack (MI):
(but as far as I know only 3 genes are injected and if I understand it right they are able to transform fibroblast cell that are within the scar into heart cells, so the scar does not disappear, but heart cells grow from the scar, so it is not scar free healing but it could be very useful for heart attack sufferers, and the therapy is minimally invasive)

Scientists use gene therapy to repair muscles damaged in heart attacks
Researchers were able to transform scar tissue in working heart muscles

Scientists have come a step closer to being able to repair the damage done by heart attacks, using a “cocktail of genes” to transform scar tissue into working heart muscles.
Novel techniques to “mend broken hearts” using gene therapy and stem cells represent a major new frontier in the treatment of heart disease.
In the latest breakthrough, achieved by researchers at the Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease in California, researchers were able to re-programme scar-forming cells into heart muscle cells, some of which were capable of transmitting the kind of electrical signals that make the heart beat, according to the latest issue of the Stem Cell Reports journal.

My point is this: there are many possible approaches how we can treat scars and it is good that there are more possible approaches, but some are right and some are wrong, my opinion is that the right approach is regenerative medicine (because therearealreadytwo publishedpapers in peer reviewed magazines which claim completeregeneration of full trickiness skin excisions on mice with all appendages - hair follicles, sebaceousand sweat glands) and genomic medicine is the wrong approach due to the complexity of the mechanism of wound healing, simply put genomics/biotechnology is still too primitive and crude and will stay primitive and crude for a long time to come, I don't believe there will be gene therapy that could totally alter the mechanism of wound healing and have the same result as the hydrogel on mice for another 20, 30 or 50 years, if gene therapycould totally and completely alter themechanismof wound healing and make humans with salamander-like regenerativeabilities thenwe would have medicinelikein Star Trek, we couldcureall ornearlyallgenetic diseases.